Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Stripey

Guest Stripey

Cubase and Nuendo share the exact same audio engine and pristine sound quality featuring 32 bit floating point bit depth. Nuendo also adds the ability to record at up to 192kHz and output up to 384kHz sample rates."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If you're making music, I like SX. I tried nuendo at the SAE studios (and on a laptop) and though it's better for syncing video and such, for making music it seemed to leave out too many annoying things (like drum maps). I think nuendo 1 had them though.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Stripey

Guest Stripey

p.s i meant nuendo 2.2' date=' not nuendo 2. apprently a lot of dnb producered have done extended testing on both nuendo 2.2 and cubase sx2, and nuendos supposedly much better.[/quote']

Well like it says on the steinberg site, nuendo uses the same audio engine as SX but just has the capability to output at higher sample rates, so if you equate higher sample rates with "better" sound then it is "better". I personally don't see the point in going over 96kHz, where the nyquist frequency is 48kHz and the top limit of human hearing is around 18kHz.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Stripey

Guest Stripey

so what your saying' date=' is you dont beleive in analouge recording when you can have digital recording, even when your just using it as an effect.

but you also beleive in using lower sampling rates when you do use digital technology?

your stupid!!

get away from me.[/quote']

If you are using analogue recording as an effect, but have a digital recording system, then it makes sense to record to digital first, before dumping it back to analogue for the effect. Soundian said as much in that thread you are referring to.

What is the point in using a sample rate over 96kHz when there is no audible difference? Are you seriously telilng me that even with a 44.1kHz 16-bit CD, you can hear aliasing? If you have ears that can hear sounds over 22kHz then you must be a bat or something.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest Stripey

Guest Stripey

I'm trying to understand the benefits of higher sampling rates, but I'm guessing that with a signal containing no harmonics, such as a pure sine wave at 18kHz (which is less than the Nyquist frequency), there won't actually be any benefits. But what about, say, an 18kHz triangle wave? When can higher sampling rates really be of benefit? Is it really worth capturing the harmonics of signals beyond our own hearing range anyway?

SOS Forum Post

Features Editor Sam Inglis replies: A 48kHz system will be able to reproduce an 18kHz sine wave as effectively as a 192kHz system can, because it falls below the Nyquist frequency in both cases. An '18kHz triangle wave' can be represented as a series of sine waves at different frequencies, starting at 18kHz and moving rapidly up. Many of these upper harmonics will fall above the Nyquist frequency of a 48kHz system, so it won't be able to reproduce such a signal as accurately as a 192kHz system. However, tests suggest that the upper limit of the frequency range most human beings are able to detect is around 15-18kHz, so it's arguable that there's no point in reproducing these harmonics.

There are a couple of arguments for high sample rate recording. One says that although we can't audibly perceive frequencies above 18kHz (or whatever), they are perceptible in some other way, and thus that reproducing them in a recording helps to add realism, solidity of stereo image, or some other desirable feature.

The other has to do with filtering: because a digital system can only represent frequencies below the Nyquist frequency, which is equal to half the sampling rate, the signal must be low-pass filtered before it can be digitised, in order to remove any higher frequencies that are present. If these were not removed, they would be misrepresented by the system and become audible as aliasing. The ideal filter design for this purpose would be a true brick-wall filter, ie. one that lets through all frequencies below the Nyquist value and eliminates all frequencies above it altogether. Unfortunately, in the real world it's impossible to design a true brick-wall filter that doesn't distort the frequency response below the Nyquist value. Proponents of high sample rate recording argue that in the case of all 44.1 or 48kHz systems, the artifacts of this filtering stretch far enough down into the frequency spectrum that they are audible, because the Nyquist value is close to the threshold of human hearing. In a 192kHz system on the other hand, the Nyquist value is 96kHz, which is way above anything humans can hear, so any distortion introduced by low-pass filtering at this level will be less audible.

I don't see any point atall in going over 96kHz, all it results in is redundant data surely?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest lime ruined my life

Guest lime ruined my life

did you write that? and then quote it to make it look factually correct? from reading bits of that it actually just makes the writer look stupid, they dont apear to have a clue what the sampling theorem is.